IPCC report leaked, again

The denialists have leaked the draft IPCC report, again. There are some self-serving lies at WUWT about exactly why it was OK to break the confidentiality agreement, but given that any old fool can sign up to be an “expert reviewer” and many do, and that the denialists are self-serving liars, leaking of the report was only to be expected. Which makes a farce of trying to keep it private. The only solution is for the IPCC to stop pretending it isn’t going to be leaked, and make the draft report publically available with the words “draft” stamped on it in nice big letters.

While they’re doing that they should rename the “expert reviewer” category to just “reviewer”, or perhaps just remove it entirely. Certainly at the moment there is no quality control at all over the expertness of the reviewer.

More interesting is “World avoided” simulations with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (ppt): We use the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model, coupled to a deep ocean model, to investigate the impact of continued growth of halogenated ozone depleting substances (ODS) in the absence of the Montreal Protocol. We confirm the previously reported result that the growth of ODS leads to a global collapse of the ozone layer in mid-21st century, with column amounts falling to 100 DU or less at all latitudes.

41 thoughts on “IPCC report leaked, again”

I was wondering if the roughly half of the fossil fuel CO2 that is somehow handled by biogeochemical cycling — doesn’t appear in the atmosphere — would still be screwing up ocean pH, or is that much coped with more productively by photosynthesis? Looking for a science-fiction scenario of some different industrial revolution path, of the “if we’d been smarter or luckier” variety.

Of course if bromofluorocarbons had been industry’s choice, we’d be toast by now regardless.

The problem is that it takes much more time to write a text if it is published before reviewers had a look. To the “skeptics” the IPCC is the new world government, but in reality the people writing the report are scientists doing a volunteer job. Making the writing more open would increase the amount of work involved.

You see it in the manuscript for Climate of the Past (Discussions), because they do the review in the open, the first version of the manuscripts there are typically much better than the ones you receive from closed review journals. This costs the authors more time, an the other hand it is nice for the reviewers, who are also volunteers.

Still you are right maybe it would be good to make it more open next time; with such a large group there is always someone who will publish the draft anyway. In that case the individual authors will probably organize an informal review for the first draft of their part of the text.

Mims has a rather interesting background. He’s a Fellow with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture – an anti-evolution/Intellegen Design organisation:http://www.discovery.org/csc/aboutCSC.php

Shirley the IPCC needs to drop the “expert” from “expert reviewer” if they accept any application.

“As an appointed expert reviewer for the forthcoming “Fifth Assessment Report” to be published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I am going to set the facts straight.”
says Monckton h/t climateprogress

[About the only good thing about that “expert reviewer” tag is that you can almost instantly tell the bozos, because they are the only people that use it. Anyone of any quality knows its meaningless -W]

Actually, just as there is among British nobility, Ithink there is a hierarchy of bozo-ness, increasing order:
1) reviewer (claimed as one’s main identification, rather than footnote)

2 )expert review

3) appointed expert reviewer

I have seen many attain the first and 2nd ranks, but perhaps only the Viscount has claiemd the 3rd.

Over at Rabbet’s, I proposed:

‘If people haven’t plowed through comments, that might try, as per V. Gray.
Since the IPCC authors required to look at every comment, they should be able to tag each comment, such as:
2: really useful, thanks!
1: useful
0: OK, nothing special
-1: pretty dumb
-10: total waste of time.

Or something like that, and when the dust settles, put out a report that enumerates the contributions of ever reviewer. Of course, it would be nice if there were a cutoff, of the from “you’ve filed 10 -10s, so we can throw everything else from you away and not waste our time.”

As it is, the process allows the useless to waste a lot of time and still call themselves “reviewers.”
But to know that, you have to grind through a lot comments.
A prize could be given for most time-wasting commenter.’

I find it amazing that
andy revkin at NYT thinks the ramblings of Jo Nova is relevant yet the thoughts of one of the authors (steve sherwood) of the chapter being discussed is not considered worthy of a mention.

Sherwood:

“Oh that’s COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we CONCLUDE EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.” (ABC)

“The single sentence that this guy pulls out is simply paraphrasing an argument that has been put forward by a few controversial papers… The rest of the paragraph from which he has lifted this sentence, however, goes on to show that subsequent peer-reviewed literature has discredited the assumptions and/or methodology of those papers, and failed to find any effect. The absence of evidence for significant cosmic-ray effects is clearly stated in the executive summary. This guy’s spin is truly bizarre. Anyone who would buy the idea that this is a “game changer” is obviously not really looking at what is there.” (climatecrocks.com)

Gareth:
No, because V. Gray would long be gone from:
‘Or something like that, and when the dust settles, put out a report that enumerates the contributions of ever reviewer. Of course, it would be nice if there were a cutoff, of the from “you’ve filed 10 -10s, so we can throw everything else from you away and not waste our time.”

Juries in criminal trials should hand down verdicts graded according to how certain they are of guilt, with a corresponding gradation of penalties,

California has usurped democracy by requiring candidates for sherriff to have law enforcement experience (Rawls sued the state so he could run).

And then there’s all the climate stuff as well. At leisure, you could look up threads about him at various blogs (T Boggs’s might require the wayback machine to see comments; they’re worth it). For instant gratification, just look up “Alec Rawls nps” and check out the first two pdfs.

On my first and only visit to this science blog I notice that Mr Connolley and the visitors are shy in one area, that is discussion of real arguments. You do your job by referring to higher authorities, e.g. Sceptical Science. That goes for all of you. This is really the behavior of a sect.

[Darling, do we disappoint you? But I fear its you that haven’t been paying attention. Since you’re here: what real argument did you want to discuss? -W]

Hardly any surprise, but deniers seem to try and track anything that could be near a point of minimal contention (in a draft, may I remind), conflate it to extraordinar proportions and title it as “a game changer” or a “final nail” (Lord I wish all these nails were real, it would bolster the iron smithing industry and save the Florange hot furnace …)
Last attempt from (what a surprise, again – insert an image of a bored lolcat here) WUWT : trying to spin AR5 historic temperature figures to say “ahAH ! IPCC is wrong again !”
Problem for them is, their balloon full of hot air was spiked by Tamino one day later : http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/
One mere day to thoroughly debunk their nonsense. Either serious climate bloggers become very efficient, or the shrills of the deniers dive in the darkness of the hysterical nonsense.

On the other hand, today I received middle-schoolers to discuss about CCS, its opportunities and its risks. Even though they were not learned in geology, they asked very good questions about CCS safety and what can/can’t be done – they didn’t buy at face value what could be said, and they were able to understand by themselves with the help of technical explanations. 15 year old young lads and girls were able to be real skeptics while “adults” are still spouting garbage.
A pleasant hour for me – and I hope for them, too.

Isn’t it interesting that, though most “scienceblogs” (which despite the title, is short of scientists) cannot provide reasoned discussion and resort to lies, obscenity and censorship on your own sites,Connolly has no shame about making use of Tim Worstall’s liberal and principled support of free speech.

[Timmy allows people to use rude words. I don’t. Are you really having trouble with the concept of different rules in different places? You should try wearing a swimsuit to a formal dinner sometime, if yuo want a practical demonstration -W]

CL: “WUWT has a guest post by another so-called expert reviewer on AR5, Forrest Mims:”

And Mims did exactly the same in his guest post as Alec Rawls and took a short quote from an article to claim that there is no trend in humidity, whereas the authors wrote that they had not studied the trend at all.

Terrific, Neil Craig has shown up. Will he be allowed to spoil this blog, as he has so many others? A representative sample of his style of discourse:

I regrwet neither Sharon nor anybody on “scienceblogs” possesses or indeed anywhere in the eco-Nazi movement enough hoonesty or human decency to regard “pig-fucker” as representinmg anything other than the highest standard of debate to the entire movement ever aspires.

If, by that, Mal you mean having somebody willing to tell the truth “spoils” scienceblogs then I note that as your opinion.

Note, however, that it is Mal who has introduced the obscenity here.

[That seems a touch Jesuitical. He is quoting you, after all -W]

I await seeing if there is anybody at all on this site, as there isn’t elsewhere on “scienceblogs”, who feels that the global warming alarmist case is strong enough to stand without having to resort to that obscenity &/or censorship against anybody who asks questions.

[Err, what are you on about? No-one has censored you here, and no-one has thrown obscenities at you (well, they’ve quoted your own words back at you, but you can’t object to that, Shirley?) -W]

Once again Mal I invite you to debate on the facts and to dissociate yourself from such obscenities.

[I can’t see any attempt by you, here, to debate facts. Nor, in a quick review of your previous comments, do I see any other attempt. You said things like being something other than a whilly corrupt liar you must which fall foul of the obvious comment rules -W]

WC, in response to Neil: “That seems a touch Jesuitical. He is quoting you, after all -W”. Yep, creative spelling, scrambled syntax, and all.

WC: “I can’t see any attempt by you, here, to debate facts.” Hah! Neil’s opening argument on one thread was:

I suppose a zombie apocalypse is marginally more credible than the catastrophic warming fraud, in that it doesn’t have the same record of falsified predictions behind it.

I assume not one of the thieving ecofascist obscenities on “scienceblogs” will even attempt to dispute that with anything other than rudeness and obscenities, because you know you can’t.

I’m almost willing to believe someone is impersonating the real Neil Craig, with the goal of destroying any credibility he might have once had. Nobody with aspirations to elective office would be on record saying such things, would they? That must be why he made such a poor showing when he ran. Neil, if that really is you, you should consider adopting a pseudonym.

[You had me all excited there for a moment, I thought he was UKIP, and useful for tweaking Timmy. But no. However, that’s probably enough NC for the moment -W]

Once again neither mal nor anybody else pushing the catastrophic warming lie has thje decency or integrity to say that obscenity & lies rather than rational debate and the scientific method is the best way to make their case.

Who can argue with that? It obviously is the best way to make THEIR case.

Neil: I have never directed obscenities or lies towards you, so perhaps you could do me the courtesy of clearly making your case, which I gather has something to do with not accepting that climate change is taking place, as a starting point for a rational debate.
Thank you.

Richard – Neil Craig is a well known nutcase; he isn’t interested in a proper discussion, especially not in the science. I once spent a number of posts explaining, in the face of his complete denial, about oceanic acidification and why it is called that rather than oceanic neutralisation, as some prefer when they wish to hide the facts.

Guthrie, thanks for setting us straight on which Neil Craig is which. I’m guilty of a grave injustice to the Essex guy 8^(. I wonder if his showing in that election was due to mistaken identity. If I were he, I’d be taking out an ad in all the major UK newspapers: “I’m not that Neil Craig!”

To my last comment, I wish to add my thanks to our host for burrowing the unhinged NC. I come here for the high quality of the posts and the comments. It would be tragic if NC derailed this one as he has so many others.